The article "The Destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite" by Michael Davies argues that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform was not an organic development but a deliberately planned revolution. The author begins with the episode of Cardinal Ottaviani's humiliation during the first session of the Council, where he warned of a "revolution" and was silenced to applause. Davies contends that while the majority of the council fathers did not desire a rupture, they were manipulated by an influential group of liberal periti (experts), led by Annibale Bugnini. These experts allegedly inserted "time bombs"—ambiguous passages—into the Liturgical Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium to instrumentalize the document later. The text points out that the 1967 Missa Normativa, the archetype of the Novus Ordo, was rejected by the majority of bishops at the Synod, but this opposition was ignored. Furthermore, the Roman Canon, the cornerstone of the Traditional Mass, was initially removed and later restored as a mere option. Davies, citing Fr. Bonneterre, traces the origins of this revolution to a deviation within the Liturgical Movement, which, starting from sound foundations with Dom Guéranger and St. Pius X, was hijacked by modernist and ecumenical tendencies, shifting the liturgy from theocentric to anthropocentric. The article concludes by quoting Fr. Joseph Gelineau, who categorically states that the Roman Rite as it was known "no longer exists; it has been destroyed."
💥The Revolution Against Organic Development
The central thesis presented by Davies (2019), that the post-conciliar liturgical reform constituted a planned revolution rather than an evolution, finds profound support in the theological and historical analysis of the liturgy. Catholic Tradition has always understood liturgical change within a paradigm of organic development, a process that St. Vincent of Lérins described as profectus (growth), as opposed to permutatio (mutation or radical alteration). Profectus implies a growth that consolidates and enriches what already exists, keeping its identity and substance intact, just as a human body grows from infancy to maturity yet remains the same individual (Kwasniewski, 2022).
The reform implemented by Paul VI, however, did not follow this law of growth. Instead, it represented a violent rupture with Tradition. The result was not the reinvigoration of the liturgy but its devastation, replacing a vital process of maturation with a "fabrication, the banal product of the moment" (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 78, citing Ratzinger). Ecclesiastical authority, which should act as a gardener, reverently caring for what has been received, instead assumed the role of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. vi). This constructivist mentality is fundamentally alien to the spirit of the Catholic liturgy, which is understood as a received gift (paradosis), not a manufactured product.
🏛️The Mentality of the Reform's Architects
Davies's article (2019) correctly identifies the liberal periti and, in particular, Annibale Bugnini, as the principal agents of this rupture. The mentality that guided them, as documented in their own writings and the results of their work, was a combination of false antiquarianism, rationalism, and a utilitarian pastoral pragmatism.
Antiquarianism manifested in the attempt to leap over centuries of liturgical development—dismissed as medieval and Baroque "accretions"—to return to a supposed primitive purity (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 208). This approach ignores the theological principle that the history of the liturgy is guided by the Holy Spirit, who perfects it over time. Rationalism, in turn, sought to eliminate mystery, repetition, and ceremonial complexity in favor of simplicity and immediate verbal comprehension, transforming worship, which is essentially theocentric and mysterious, into a didactic and horizontal event (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 82-83). Bugnini himself admitted that the goal was to create something new: "in some areas, entire rites had to be restructured ex novo. Certainly this involves restoring, but ultimately I would almost call it a remaking and at certain points a creating anew" (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 165). Such a statement confirms the revolutionary intent and the rejection of organic development.
💎The Roman Canon as a Pillar and Target of the Revolution
The treatment of the Roman Canon is, perhaps, the most compelling evidence of the revolutionary nature of the reform, as Davies (2019) points out. The Roman Canon is not just one of several Eucharistic Prayer options; it is the "pillar and ground of the Roman Rite" (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 217). For over 1,400 years, it was the sole anaphora of the Roman Rite, a monument of the apostolic faith that the Council of Trent praised as being "so free from error that it contains nothing that does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety" (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 218).
Its removal from the Missa Normativa and its subsequent reinstatement as a mere option among many—with the new anaphoras deliberately composed to avoid its concepts and phrases—was an unprecedented act of rupture. Making the Canon an arbitrary choice of the celebrant contradicts its very nature as a "canon," that is, a fixed rule of prayer. This change reflects a profound alteration in the understanding of the liturgy itself: from a received and immutable law of prayer (lex orandi) to a menu of options subject to the individual's will (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 255). The rule can be safely formulated: where there is the Roman Rite, there is necessarily the Roman Canon. Without the Roman Canon, there is no Roman Rite (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 156).
👑The Abuse of Papal Authority and Hyperpapalism
The imposition of such a radical revolution was only possible due to a distorted conception of papal authority, a phenomenon that can be described as hyperpapalism (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 93-94). This view transforms the Pope from the guardian of Tradition into an absolute monarch, whose power is unlimited and arbitrary, capable of creating and destroying the liturgy by decree. However, the authority of the Pope is bound to the Tradition of the faith, and this also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 172).
The action of Paul VI, in promulgating a rite that breaks with immemorial tradition, was an act ultra vires, that is, beyond the legitimate authority of the papacy. The Pope does not possess the power to abolish an apostolic rite, as his office is for edification, not for destruction. The liturgical crisis is, therefore, inseparable from an ecclesiological crisis and an inflated understanding of papal power, which ignores the pontiff's moral obligation to receive and preserve the inherited rites.
🏁Conclusion
Davies's (2019) analysis of the destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite is confirmed by a deeper theological and historical investigation. The liturgical reform was not a mere pastoral adjustment but a deliberate revolution, grounded in a modernist and antiquarian mentality that rejects the principle of organic development. The result was the replacement of the Roman Rite with a fabricated rite, which Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of its defenders, unabashedly admitted: "The Roman rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed" (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 140). The crisis in the Church today is, to a large extent, rooted in the disintegration of the liturgy (Kwasniewski, 2022, p. 79). The recovery of Catholic faith and identity necessarily involves the rescue of the liturgical treasure that was recklessly abandoned.
📚References
Davies, M. (2019). The Destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite. [Adapted by a Marian sodalist].
Kwasniewski, P. A. (2022). The Once and Future Roman Rite: Returning to the Traditional Latin Liturgy after Seventy Years of Exile. TAN Books.
